James, I am not sure why you keep repeating the same thing, especially on the OO board.

What if I choose not to consider that the EO is alone the true Church?

The Church has very clearly been divided in a human sense a great many times and has healed itself. Which part of the Church was the true Church during the Acacian Schism for instance? Or did the Georgian Church cease to be the Church because it was not in communion with the Byzantines?

You do need to read Church History more carefully. Whenever separated parts of the Church have been reconciled they have not treated the other as not having been part of the Church. What you are repeatedly proposing is a modern novelty.

In the 1850's when the Greek Church of Alexandria was planning to be reunited with the Coptic Orthodox Church to exist as one communion there was no consideration of one part not being the Church. In the present times the Antiochian and Syrian Orthodox have published synodal statements which allow for inter-communion and sharing of sacraments. The Greek and Coptic Orthodox Church in Alexandria allow for sharing of sacraments. None of this would be possible if in fact it was considered that only one party was the true Church.

Father Peter Farrington

I would have no problem whatsoever with you not considering the EO to be the true Church. In fact, I expect people shouldn't consider a Church they are not part of to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. As to why I keep saying what I do, it is because that is my opinion, that the OO are not the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. However, I always want to clarify when I say you are in schism by saying I do not think your church is 'bad' and unholy and you are all heretical and damned, because that is not what I believe. I just do not understand how someone can speak of ONE Church, and of the Church being the Body of Christ, if they say that two groups who are not in communion with each other are both the Body of Christ. The only way that makes any sense is if Christ either has two bodies, or if Christ has somehow had a limb separated.

Was the Georgian Church the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, I would probably say no it was not when it was not in communion with the EO Churches. As to the Acacian Schism, I wil just say that if anyone insists on being in communion with heretics, Ido not understand how they can be considered as part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church because they are essentially saying that both the heretical belief and the true belief are equally valid.

Whether or not a group that was separated from the Church has been treated as having been, can quite likely be a case of economia, as opposed to an endorsement of the group.

Let me ask you this, if the OO and EO are together the One Church, do you allow any and all EO faithful to partake of your chalice when you serve?

To me, the idea that two groups can both be the True Church is essentially the Anglican Branch Theory. I know of no Orthodox bishop who endorses Branch Theory - something it would seem you do, just redefining it from the Anglican Church, Roman Church, and Orthodox Church as the Branches of the Church to the EO and OO as the Branches.

The Jerusalem and Romanian Churches are not in communion. Which one is the true Church? ROCOR and the MP have not been in communion, which one is the true Church?

All you are doing is surely elevating your opinion above the history and practice of the Church, in a protestant manner, and then accusing me, while I simply approve the practice of the Church through 2000 years, of being an heretic?

And you are not even Orthodox.

Of course EO are communed in OO churches around the world, and OO are communed by EO around the world. As I stated, the Antiochian and Syrians allow mutual communion, as do the Greeks and Coptic Orthodox in Egypt, and the same thing happens in many and most places around the world.

I know many EO bishops who commune, and have offered to commune, members of the OO, and vice-versa. I even know ROCOR priests who have communed OO.

If two bishops become separated due to all manner of reasons there is no division at all in the spiritual reality of the Church. This is NOT the brach theory. To suggest it is is no more than throwing around insults to avoid addressing the real issues.

i. There have been countless divisions in the unity of the Church which have been dealt with without treating one group as having ceased to be the Church.

ii. I cannot think of an example of such reconciliation where the word 'economia' was used in relation to the reconciliation.

iii. I can think of a great many explicit statements of various church leaders through the past millenia which consider the other party in a division to be the Church but in error.

If you are not able to consider how it is possible for members of the Church to be separated then I encourage you to read a lot more Church history and be slower to assert that various Orthodox Christians are not part of the Church because YOU cannot work out how that is possible.

Let me just ask you this, as I don't have the time right now to answer to the whole post. Can you point to two or three EO Bishops and two or three OO Bishops who would agree with your position that the OO and EO are both fully the Church?

All of the Holy Synods of the OO have agreed that the EO are Orthodox.

The Romanian Synod has agreed that the OO are Orthodox, as has the Antiochian.

I will not name individual EO bishops who I know commune OO.

I am not permitted to concelebrate with EO priests, but that does not mean that they are not considered Orthodox priests. Jerusalem and Romanian priests and bishops are not able to concelebrate at the moment, does that mean that they consider the others not to be Orthodox? The Antiochian and Syrian Orthodox have agreed that concelebration may take place. The Coptic Orthodox are prepared for concelebration to take place.

There are countless examples of the same situations through Church history. For any reconciliation to take place it is the case that before the reconciliation is formalised there must be a state where the other party is considered Orthodox but with broken relationships.

With respect, you are not Orthodox. I do not think that you are best placed to decide who should be doing what or who may be considered the Church or not.

You are insisting that in the case where two bishops disagree on some matter and fall out of communion it is a necessity that one party must cease to be part of the Body of Christ, and therefore cease to be Christian. This is not supported by the practice or history of the Church at all. You are then insisting that when these two bishops reconcile it may be on the basis of one party being treated as if it was part of the Body of Christ, even though it was not. This again is not supported by the practice or history of the Church. You are also insisting that all the laity belonging to the jurisdiction of a bishop who separates from another bishop must also be considered to have ceased to be part of the Body of Christ. None of these opinions are based on any historical evidence whatsoever.

When the Greek Patriarch left Egypt for business in the 1850's he left his Church in the care of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate. He was prepared to become a Metropolitan within the Coptic Orthodox Church and unite his community with the Coptic Orthodox. Due to the manouvering of the British in Egypt the Coptic Orthodox Patriarch was murdered by the Muslims before this union could come about. In the present days the two Orthodox communities in Egypt accept each others sacraments and therefore consider each other to be THE Church.

I split this off from the original thread because I want to keep that other thread on topic. I'll keep this here as long as it is civil. Otherwise, it will get kicked into the ugly depths of the private forum.

All of the Holy Synods of the OO have agreed that the EO are Orthodox.

The Romanian Synod has agreed that the OO are Orthodox, as has the Antiochian.

I will not name individual EO bishops who I know commune OO.

I am not permitted to concelebrate with EO priests, but that does not mean that they are not considered Orthodox priests. Jerusalem and Romanian priests and bishops are not able to concelebrate at the moment, does that mean that they consider the others not to be Orthodox? The Antiochian and Syrian Orthodox have agreed that concelebration may take place. The Coptic Orthodox are prepared for concelebration to take place.

There are countless examples of the same situations through Church history. For any reconciliation to take place it is the case that before the reconciliation is formalised there must be a state where the other party is considered Orthodox but with broken relationships.

With respect, you are not Orthodox. I do not think that you are best placed to decide who should be doing what or who may be considered the Church or not.

You are insisting that in the case where two bishops disagree on some matter and fall out of communion it is a necessity that one party must cease to be part of the Body of Christ, and therefore cease to be Christian. This is not supported by the practice or history of the Church at all. You are then insisting that when these two bishops reconcile it may be on the basis of one party being treated as if it was part of the Body of Christ, even though it was not. This again is not supported by the practice or history of the Church. You are also insisting that all the laity belonging to the jurisdiction of a bishop who separates from another bishop must also be considered to have ceased to be part of the Body of Christ. None of these opinions are based on any historical evidence whatsoever.

When the Greek Patriarch left Egypt for business in the 1850's he left his Church in the care of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate. He was prepared to become a Metropolitan within the Coptic Orthodox Church and unite his community with the Coptic Orthodox. Due to the manouvering of the British in Egypt the Coptic Orthodox Patriarch was murdered by the Muslims before this union could come about. In the present days the two Orthodox communities in Egypt accept each others sacraments and therefore consider each other to be THE Church.

Father Peter Farrington

Our bishop, Metropolitan Joseph of the Bulgarian Diocese of the USA and Canada, said he would commune OO as long as they had the blessing of their bishop.

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Father, let me just preface by saying I hadn't really intended or desired a debate with my original post in the other thread, and so I don't really have the desire for an in depth debate. However, I will say that I see a clear distinction between the Romanians and Jerusalemites (does anyone happen to know the actual adjective for the Jerusalem Patriarchate?) falling out of communion and what has occured between the EO and the OO. This distinction being of course that the Romanian Patriarchate and the Jerusalem Patriarchate are both in total communion with Moscow, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, etc. whereas the OO fell out of communion with all of the EO Churches, and the Copts only remained in communion with (and vice versa) the Armenians, the Syrians, the Ethiopians, and (for a time) the Georgians. Another distinction would be that the OO/EO schism has lasted for over a thousand years, whereas the Romanian/Jerusalem dispute will likely not last for two, if that.

As well Father, while all of the OO Holy Synods may well have declared the EO to be Orthodox (you would certainly know more about this than me, as I do not keep up with OO Synod declarations), this does not mean that they have endorsed your view that we are one Church, it merely means that they recognize the OO and EO as holding to the same faith, something I would agree with, as would - it would seem - most OO and EO. It does not mean that one group is not schismatic (in my view, the OO, and I would assume any OO who don't view both groups as one Church, the would view the EO as the schismatics). I know that many EO do in fact view the OO as schismatics, and I have read in many places that many OO view the EO as schismatics (especially the Ethiopians).

Do you mind telling me why you won't name EO bishops who commune OO? Is it perhaps because their Synods have told them not to as the Eastern Orthodox Church does not view the OO as being part of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? If it is not, I do not know why you won't divulge this information.

Could you please point me to where the Antiochians and the Syrians say concelebration may take place? I know that they have said inter-communion can happen, as the Antiochians have said about the Melkites, IIRC (though, I am under the impression that in every instance where the Antiochians have said that someone who is not EO may commune in an Antiochian Church, and vice-versa, this is meant to be in an extraordianry circumstance, not a common thing).

I realize I am not Orthodox, but that has no bearing on whether or not my opinion is correct. As well, I am in the process of becoming Orthodox. I could just as easily say you are not EO and so cannot claim to have any idea about whether or not the EO consider the OO to be one church with them.

I will perhaps get around to responding to the rest of your post(s) later.

Father, let me just preface by saying I hadn't really intended or desired a debate with my original post in the other thread, and so I don't really have the desire for an in depth debate. However, I will say that I see a clear distinction between the Romanians and Jerusalemites (does anyone happen to know the actual adjective for the Jerusalem Patriarchate?) falling out of communion and what has occured between the EO and the OO. This distinction being of course that the Romanian Patriarchate and the Jerusalem Patriarchate are both in total communion with Moscow, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, etc. whereas the OO fell out of communion with all of the EO Churches, and the Copts only remained in communion with (and vice versa) the Armenians, the Syrians, the Ethiopians, and (for a time) the Georgians. Another distinction would be that the OO/EO schism has lasted for over a thousand years, whereas the Romanian/Jerusalem dispute will likely not last for two, if that.

As well Father, while all of the OO Holy Synods may well have declared the EO to be Orthodox (you would certainly know more about this than me, as I do not keep up with OO Synod declarations), this does not mean that they have endorsed your view that we are one Church, it merely means that they recognize the OO and EO as holding to the same faith, something I would agree with, as would - it would seem - most OO and EO. It does not mean that one group is not schismatic (in my view, the OO, and I would assume any OO who don't view both groups as one Church, the would view the EO as the schismatics). I know that many EO do in fact view the OO as schismatics, and I have read in many places that many OO view the EO as schismatics (especially the Ethiopians).

Do you mind telling me why you won't name EO bishops who commune OO? Is it perhaps because their Synods have told them not to as the Eastern Orthodox Church does not view the OO as being part of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? If it is not, I do not know why you won't divulge this information.

Could you please point me to where the Antiochians and the Syrians say concelebration may take place? I know that they have said inter-communion can happen, as the Antiochians have said about the Melkites, IIRC (though, I am under the impression that in every instance where the Antiochians have said that someone who is not EO may commune in an Antiochian Church, and vice-versa, this is meant to be in an extraordianry circumstance, not a common thing).

I realize I am not Orthodox, but that has no bearing on whether or not my opinion is correct. As well, I am in the process of becoming Orthodox. I could just as easily say you are not EO and so cannot claim to have any idea about whether or not the EO consider the OO to be one church with them.

I will perhaps get around to responding to the rest of your post(s) later.

Andrew, can you please point to a document saying this?

I can't because I'm just going by what my priest has said, even though my priest is not sure if the OO are Orthodox (though I believe they are) he is just obeying His Eminence's policy.

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Thank you anyways Andrew, and it's not that I distrusted you, I just like to know exactly what's said when a bishop is said to have said something outside the norm (I wonder if I can fit one more 'said' into this sentence?), you know what I'm saying (is that close enough?)? I might go looking for his statement later.

The Jerusalem and Romanian Churches are not in communion. Which one is the true Church? ROCOR and the MP have not been in communion, which one is the true Church?

I understand what you are trying to convey, Fr. Peter, but I’m sure you realize that the subject of communion between ROCOR and the MP during Soviet times, and between Romania and Jerusalem in the present time, are quite different than the situation between EO and OO. St. Basil in his first canon refers to schisms due to “remediable causes” (sometimes called administrative schisms) in which both parties remain part of the Church, and schisms of course are distinguished from heresies. In the case of ROCOR and the MP, while they did not concelebrate together and were not directly in communion, both ROCOR and the MP remained in communion with the rest of the Church, and were recognized by the rest of the Orthodox Church (ROCOR at least by Serbia and Jerusalem). In the case of Romania and Jerusalem, the rest of the Orthodox Church recognizes both as Orthodox and is in communion with both, there is just no direct communion or concelebration by the clergy and bishops until the issue is resolved that prompted the breaking of communion in the first place. In the case of ROCOR and the MP, communion was broken for perhaps 80 yrs, and between Romania and Jerusalem it has been a few weeks. No Orthodox bishops in the entire world concelebrate or are in communion with Non-Chalcedonian bishops, however, nor have they been for about 1,500 yrs. I’m sure you realize there is a difference in these situations.

Now, as to whether OO should be regarded by EO as merely in schism due to a “remediable cause” (for 1,500 yrs!) as opposed to a being in schism and heresy, obviously the professors and academicians seem to be saying there is no difference in faith, but we have yet to have any saints or holy elders confirm this. The Church is led by its saints and Fathers, not by academic symposiums or doctoral dissertations. It very well could be that a Council will occur whereby all of the differences are resolved and the EO will officially state that the OO are fully Orthodox (and vice versa) and communion can be established. It very well may be that after such an event the faithful will see that this Council was guided by the Holy Spirit and acted in a manner pleasing to God. At such a time, EO bishops may receive OO bishops as fully Orthodox, or there will simply be the entering into communion of two equal parties, and this will be sealed by concelebration. Until that time, though, just because past schisms have been healed when both parties recognize each other as part of the Church, this does not imply that the present division will be resolved in such a manner. Also, we have to show some respect, I think, for how the division between EO and OO differs from every other schism that has been resolved in the past. I am all for reunion if done properly, but at the same time I think both sides may exhibit a lack of respect for their own saints and fathers by considering this division to be “no big deal” or due to a “mere misunderstanding.”

Out of curiosity, do you have OO saints and Fathers who have said that the EO are fully Orthodox?

Now, after saying this, the OP’s question is focused on what relationship EO and OO can have in working towards such a reunion. Personally, I have no idea and would rather leave this matter to God, trusting that God will make this happen through the bishops if such a thing is pleasing to God. Personally, I would welcome a friendship with an OO priest or layperson just to learn more about their history and tradition and in order to better understand where the differences and similarities are to be found. However, I would not be comfortable with any form of joint prayer until communion is established.

Now, as to whether OO should be regarded by EO as merely in schism due to a “remediable cause” (for 1,500 yrs!) as opposed to a being in schism and heresy, obviously the professors and academicians seem to be saying there is no difference in faith, but we have yet to have any saints or holy elders confirm this.

Just off the top of my head, St. John the Merciful and John the Faster (the first Patriarch of Constantinople to use the title Ecumenical Patriarch) come to mind. Then of course there is St. Theodora who was herself Non-Chalcedonian. There may be others.

Quote

Out of curiosity, do you have OO saints and Fathers who have said that the EO are fully Orthodox?

St. Nerses Shnorhali ("The Gracefilled") entered into dialogue with the Greeks during the 1100's and came to the conclusion that we both have the same Christology.

There is a great amount of history which shows that the EO and OO have always considered themselves to be essentially the same Church though divided.

The Non-Orthodox OP may well feel able to determine who is and who is not Orthodox, but I don't accept or trust his judgement and consider him to lack a thorough knowledge of Church history. I don't mean that in a derogatory manner but as a matter of fact.

The OO have always considered that the EO could be received as Orthodox, and the EO always considered that the OO could be received as Orthodox. When one rather ugly EO patriarch decided that he would reordain OO clergy his views were universally treated as scandalous and the emperor insisted that he stop the practice. Every single restoration of communion between EO and OO, and there have been many, was always on the basis of the reconciliation of members of the Church and never on the basis of the submission of one party as being outside the Church.

I know of too many instances where EO and OO laity are mutually communed by bishops who consider that we are one Church. The issue of concelebration is entirely different and is a red herring.

The idea that ROCOR remained Orthodox because it was in tenuous communion with some and not most others is entirely a non-Orthodox ecclesiology. It remained Orthodox because it was Orthodox not because it was in communion with anyone. If everyone in the world had repudiated ROCOR it would not have denied ROCOR its nature as part of the Church. The view that Orthodoxy is determined by communion is generally a modern RC influenced view, and it is often associated with the idea that Orthodoxy is determined by being in communion with the EP. This is all false. Orthodoxy is determined by being Orthodox. Orthodox bishops SHOULD be in communion with one another, but if they choose not to be then this does not divide the Church nor take way the Orthodoxy of a diocese or archdiocese or patriarchate if it remains Orthodox.

So, Father, would it then be your position that if, say, the OCA decided to break off communion with every Orthodox bishop, and stayed that way for 1,500 years, it would still be the Church, despite the fact that it has no communion with anyone, so long as it doesn't change its faith?

And we are talking about a huge amount of historical and documentary evidence showing that both parties always considered the other party to be Orthodox even if defective in some point of view.

The Orthodoxy of a local church is not determined by the views of others but by whether or not that Church remains Orthodox.

In the Acacian schism did Rome cease to be Orthodox in your view just because it was left on its own? Does a church cease to be Orthodox if it remains in communion only with one other group, or two, or how many?

Such a view is not Orthodox ecclesiology.

It is said the world woke up and found itself Arian, does this mean the Orthodox bishops ceased to be Orthodox because the majority voted against them? Did St Athanasius remain Orthodox only because he found someone else to be in communion with, or because he remained Orthodox? If you became Orthodox and were sent on a space mission where you entered a worm hole and were lost to all human knowledge would you cease to be Orthodox because you were not in communion with anyone?

Let me just ask you this, as I don't have the time right now to answer to the whole post. Can you point to two or three EO Bishops and two or three OO Bishops who would agree with your position that the OO and EO are both fully the Church?

Might i add the fifth ecumenical councils decision?

"VIII.

IF anyone uses the expression "of two natures," confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression "the one nature made flesh of God the Word," and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit: that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema. For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically [to humanity] we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each [nature] remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh. Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his"

This is not OO teaching so according to the decision the OO theological understanding is acceptable... just my two cents however Fr. Farrington please correct me if i am wrong!

*edit* i posted this not reading all of the posts so im not sure if it really fits in well bt i still think it goes to show that the theology of the OO is orthodox and as Fr. Farrington said that makes them orthodox...

It doesn't really apply to my argument - which is that the Body of Christ cannot be divided into two parts, therefore the OO and the EO cannot both be the Church. It does not have to do with the faith of the OO, but rather with a believe that where the Bishop is, there is the Church.

But the OO and the EO all have bishops and have faithful gathered around their bishops. If the bishops have not ceased to hold the Orthodox Faith then in what sense can any have ceased to be members of the Church simply because one bishop chooses not to recognise another.

Your argument is false. It assumes that the Church is simply a businesslike organisation that requires a visible unity at all times. If you study the history of the Church you will see that it has often been riven by schism without ceasing to be One Church, and has almost always considered the others (EO or OO) to be of the Church even if subject to error or sin.

If there were two bishops and dioceses on a remote planet who fell out with each other without either ceasing to hold to the Orthodox Faith then at which point in time would either cease to be the Church?

The Body of Christ is not divided but quite clearly the visible Church has often been divided. It is part of the rose tinted presentation of Orthodoxy on all sides which suggests there has never been division, but there has always been division, weakness and sin, because the Church is both human and divine.

from what i am understanding its like is someone who practices Karate, Two schools may fall out of favor with one another but if they both practice the same art, unaltered, they are both practicing karate. The simple fact that both communions are practicing Orthodox practice MAKES them Orthodox.

from what i am understanding its like is someone who practices Karate, Two schools may fall out of favor with one another but if they both practice the same art, unaltered, they are both practicing karate. The simple fact that both communions are practicing Orthodox practice MAKES them Orthodox.

I think that's a great analogy. Thanks for sharing!

In Christ,Andrew

Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

But the OO and the EO all have bishops and have faithful gathered around their bishops. If the bishops have not ceased to hold the Orthodox Faith then in what sense can any have ceased to be members of the Church simply because one bishop chooses not to recognise another.

Your argument is false. It assumes that the Church is simply a businesslike organisation that requires a visible unity at all times. If you study the history of the Church you will see that it has often been riven by schism without ceasing to be One Church, and has almost always considered the others (EO or OO) to be of the Church even if subject to error or sin.

If there were two bishops and dioceses on a remote planet who fell out with each other without either ceasing to hold to the Orthodox Faith then at which point in time would either cease to be the Church?

The Body of Christ is not divided but quite clearly the visible Church has often been divided. It is part of the rose tinted presentation of Orthodoxy on all sides which suggests there has never been division, but there has always been division, weakness and sin, because the Church is both human and divine.

Father, a lovely post. Especially that last paragraph. This point happily has been made on more than occasion and by more than one EO priest to me.

from what i am understanding its like is someone who practices Karate, Two schools may fall out of favor with one another but if they both practice the same art, unaltered, they are both practicing karate. The simple fact that both communions are practicing Orthodox practice MAKES them Orthodox.

Except that your analogy separates Orthodoxy from the Orthodox Church. Someone could, at least theoretically, teach themselves karate and become an expert in it, and then open a karate school. One cannot teach oneself Orthodoxy and then declare yourself a bishop and open an Orthodox Church. Karate is just forms, it is not the structure. Christ, on the other hand, came to Earth and established a SINGLE Church, he did not just teach stuff and then tell the Apostles "OK, go your own way and just tell everyone what I told you, don't worry about people setting up their own shop, it's perfectly a ok by me."

Father Peter, the reason I am not responding to your post is because my goal in responding to this thread was not to reignite the debate, but rather to tell Seafra that his argument doesn't really address mine, and now to show how his analogy is faulty.

You may not wish to respond to my post, but you are still asserting, as a non-Orthodox, what Orthodox must believe, when clearly we do not and have never done so.

The fact that EO and OO do not rebaptise each other, or reordain each other, or consider each other not to have been the Church when reconciliation takes place shows that your opinion is not supported by history or Tradition.

Indeed you are suggesting that your views, as a non-Orthodox, are superior to that of Orthodox bishops. The fact a Serbian priest has just been received as Orthodox into the Coptic Orthodox Church shows the view which is actually held. The fact in my own community an Antiochian priest received a canonical transfer to the Coptic Orthodox Church from his own bishop to my own bishop shows the view which is actually held.

The fact in my own community an Antiochian priest received a canonical transfer to the Coptic Orthodox Church from his own bishop to my own bishop shows the view which is actually held.

Father,

Not to inquire too far into the details, but I am unsure of implications without some.

Was the Antiochian Priest transferred to the Coptic Orthodox Church, because he wanted to "become" part of the COC and thus leaving the EOC? Or was it a "cooperative" agreement between the Bishops to meet some pastoral need?

I apologize if my question is not very clear and for all the scare quotes, I am just not sure of the correct terms to use here. I hope you understand what I am asking.

What is implied as I (mis)understand the statement is that the relationship between the EOC and OOC is closer than I thought.

The Antiochian priest wished to become a priest of the COC and ceased practicing as a priest in the EOC. After 7 or 8 years his personal circumstances changed and he returned to the EOC where he continued to practice as a priest, this time as one in the EOC rather than the COC. So I guess that his EOC priesthood was recognised in the COC and then his continuing status as a priest was recognised back in the EOC.

You may not wish to respond to my post, but you are still asserting, as a non-Orthodox, what Orthodox must believe, when clearly we do not and have never done so.

The fact that EO and OO do not rebaptise each other, or reordain each other, or consider each other not to have been the Church when reconciliation takes place shows that your opinion is not supported by history or Tradition.

Indeed you are suggesting that your views, as a non-Orthodox, are superior to that of Orthodox bishops. The fact a Serbian priest has just been received as Orthodox into the Coptic Orthodox Church shows the view which is actually held. The fact in my own community an Antiochian priest received a canonical transfer to the Coptic Orthodox Church from his own bishop to my own bishop shows the view which is actually held.

I am not Orthodox yet, you are right. However, you are not Eastern Orthodox, yet assert that the EO Church believes what you do. Many, many, many clergy and laity and bishops in the past and today, of the Eastern Orthodox Church, believe that you are a monophysite (I am not saying you are, I am saying many believe as such), and many also say that you are NOT a part of the Church. As well, when a decent number of Nestorians joined the Russian Church, their priests were received by vesting, does this mean that the Nestorians are Orthodox as well and part of the Church (at least according to this article http://www.roca.org/bishop_john.htm)?

If the EO and the OO are the same Church, then why do you need to receive them at all? Why allow them to become a Coptic Priest, when they are already a part of the Church? Also, the fact that you admit he wanted to become a priest of your church and "ceased practicing as a priest in the EOC" sugguests that the Eastern Orthodox don't view you as the Church.

You really are persistent in imposing your view of Church Tradition. Lol!

In Orthodoxy a priest is under a particular bishop. He is not a freelance minister who can do what he likes. He therefore serves in the area of ministry of a particular bishop. When this priest became a priest of the COC he had a service within the jurisdiction of the COC and under the authority of my own bishop. To become a Coptic priest means to become a minister within a particular jurisdiction. If I wanted to become an Armenian priest, for instance, this would not mean that I did not consider myself a priest before, but that I had formally been transferred to a different jurisdiction.

The fact that the EO bishop provided a canonical release shows that he did believe that he was transferring one of his priests to another Orthodox jurisdiction. I know the priest in any case. He certainly believed that he was not leaving one Church and joining a different one, meaning that one was not Orthodox, rather that he was indeed changing jurisdictions not Churches.

I do not think you understand how priests operate under the authority of a bishop. I 'belong' to my bishop. I can't just go where I like. I have to be released to the service of another Orthodox bishop. This is what took place in this case.

Many in the past may well have considered all manner of things. My own Orthodox Fathers also had their own views about the Chalcedonians. But at no time, even while considering the Chalcedonians to be in error, did the OO consider them not to be a deficient part of the One Church. It is rather irrelevant what the EO think in the context of this particular exchange, though they have not ever treated reconciling groups as being non-Orthodox and in 1851 the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria was prepared to enter into communion with the Coptic Patriarch, and today the Greek and Coptic Patriarchates accept each others sacraments, and the Antiochian and Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate also accept each others sacraments. You are on the OO Forum stating that the OO cannot consider the EO to be Orthodox. You are wrong.

I do not think you understand how priests operate under the authority of a bishop. I 'belong' to my bishop. I can't just go where I like. I have to be released to the service of another Orthodox bishop. This is what took place in this case.

James this is correct. My Priest (OCA), for example, when he wanted to serve Liturgy in a parish underneath another OCA Bishop's jurisdiction, he received permission from his Bishop and the Bishop of the other jurisdiction to do so.

I suppose I should have been more clear on this point. I didn't mean to suggest that a priest can just go wherever he pleases, but, at the same time, my point was this: why should the Coptic Church be bringing in priests from the EO if they consider the EO to be the same Church?

" You are on the OO Forum stating that the OO cannot consider the EO to be Orthodox. You are wrong." I have NEVER said this, it is a lie to say that I have. I am saying that you cannot be claiming to be the expert on the EO's position. I do not care what you think the OO believe, I care that you keep saying the EO believe you to be part of the Church.

"Many in the past may well have considered all manner of things. My own Orthodox Fathers also had their own views about the Chalcedonians. But at no time, even while considering the Chalcedonians to be in error, did the OO consider them not to be a deficient part of the One Church."

Yes, in the past many believed all sorts of things. You ignored the "and today" part of my comment though. There are countless EO preists, laity, and bishops who do not think you are the Church. Do you think this irrelevant?

Then why are you here on the OO forum? Do you think that we need a non-Orthodox to insist that we are not Orthodox?

Do you want me to list all the EO bishops who I know think that the OO are part of the One Church?

I know one Russian bishop who offered communion to an entire OO congregation when their church was suddenly unavailable for Pascha - though the offer did not need to be accepted in the end. I know one Russian bishop who communes Armenians in his congregation. I know a ROCOR priest who has communed Copts. I know Russian bishops who have agreed that their faithful can receive communion in the Coptic Church. I know Belorussian clergy who believe I am Orthodox. I know that the Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria accepts all of the sacraments of the Coptic Patriarchate. I know that in 1851 the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria was preparing to enter union with the Coptic Church. I know that the Russian Church of the mid-19th century wished to take the OO of the Middle East into its care. I know many EO bishops and priests personally around the world who consider me Orthodox. I know the Romanian, Antiochian, Alexandrian and Ecumenical Patriarchates consider me Orthodox. All of those bishops representing a wide variety of EO communities who have participated in various discussions with the OO consider me Orthodox.

What is it to you what a particular priest does, here in the UK or in Australia. The particular circumstances of at least two priests have led them to serve in the COC as priests. The COC is not 'bringing in priests'. If there is a pastoral need then lots of things happen that are not for you to know or criticise. The fact is that they were received as Orthodox in the COC, and certainly in the case known personally to me, were allowed to come to the COC as being transferred to an Orthodox jurisdiction.

There are Greek priests who have joined the Russian Church, does that mean that you will be asking.. why should the Russian Church be bringing in priests from the Greeks if they consider the Greeks to be the same Church?

I like to press the pause button in threads. What is your point here? If it is to say that you do not think the OOC is not Orthodox, then we get it.

If it is to try to find a consensus of the board on the issue, well the thread is now boiled down to basically two members who obviously disagree with each other.

If you are trying to convince Father Peter to change his position, I fail to see that happening.

My purpose is to correct misunderstandings of my position, so that those who might read this thread in the future will have a better idea of where I stood. I don't have any hope of convincing Father Peter to change his position, I don't think he will.

And Father Peter, I don't see why you seem to insist on, in every other post, pointing out the fact that I am not Orthodox. I am in the process of joining the Orthodox Church, and from the perspective of many, YOU are not Orthodox.

You are entitled to your position, but on this forum you are not entitled to keep presenting it on the OO section. It would be better if you found a thread in another section where others agreed with you that I am not Orthodox.

Salpy, I apologize for letting my posts get somewhat heated and I will try and keep them a bit cooler in the future.

Father Peter, I am here to - as I said - correct misunderstandings in my posts. And what do you mean I am "not entitled to keep presenting" my view in this forum? All I had been doing was, when I would comment in a thread where I felt it was necessary in my post to assert that I didn't think you were the actual Church, added an addendum to it saying that while I think your church is schismatic, I don't think it heretical. You are the one who kept making a fuss about my post and who started a debate. Not me.

Oh, and I find it funny how you complained about Monachos not being welcoming to OO, and then here you are basically telling me to shut up (which, I presume, was also the point of repeatedly saying I am not Orthodox - something anyone who looks to the left of my posts will see).

Here is the problem james... You are on a forum specifically for the OO saying that they are not orthodox... If nothing else it is disrespectful you made your point but no one gere adheres with you so to continue does not and won't make you look any better to future readers... As they will probably be OO and disagree with you

While it doesn't specifically break any rules for you to state for the record your own opinion of our Church, and the fact that there are many EO's who consider us heretics, to repeatedly do so does get a little polemical-sounding. For the sake of keeping the peace, I would like you to not push that issue.

I'm sure that Father Peter will do his own part in keeping the peace by not pointing out anymore that you have not yet joined any Orthodox Church.

While it doesn't specifically break any rules for you to state for the record your own opinion of our Church, and the fact that there are many EO's who consider us heretics, to repeatedly do so does get a little polemical-sounding. For the sake of keeping the peace, I would like you to not push that issue.

I'm sure that Father Peter will do his own part in keeping the peace by not pointing out anymore that you have not yet joined any Orthodox Church.

I'd like to thank you both for your anticipated cooperation.

LOL do you realize the irony in that so... Lol I'm sure it wasn't intended

Here is the problem james... You are on a forum specifically for the OO saying that they are not orthodox... If nothing else it is disrespectful you made your point but no one gere adheres with you so to continue does not and won't make you look any better to future readers... As they will probably be OO and disagree with you

I will just make this one more post and then am done with the thread. Seafra, no one may agree, and that is fine. However, I have only continued this because other people have responded to my posts, usually misunderstanding what I am saying.

Salpy, I can certainly understand how I may have sounded polemical, and I apologize to anyone who I have offended by doing so.

While I did find this thread interesting, I must say, I really don't think it is appropriate for Chalcedonians to post on OUR fora about how we Orthodox (AKA 'OO') are schismatic. One thing I dislike about the dialogue between the Orthodox and the Chalcedonians is that the Orthodox are almost capitulating to the other side. We have done so many things which contradict the memory of our own God-bearing Orthodox Fathers and many Chalcedonians can't even show us enough respect on an Internet forum not to call us schismatic! I am sorry for resurrecting such an old thread, but I had to say this. Please do not take offence to this post.

« Last Edit: September 09, 2011, 04:57:26 PM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Oh, and I find it funny how you complained about Monachos not being welcoming to OO, and then here you are basically telling me to shut up (which, I presume, was also the point of repeatedly saying I am not Orthodox - something anyone who looks to the left of my posts will see).

Why don't you ask a parish priest near you? It's one thing to "understand" Orthodoxy via the internet or reading. Try living the Orthodox life, and you'll see what compels us to recognize the OO as Orthodox.

I think a more pragmatic and fruitful method (toward union) would be to convene a conference of seasoned Athonite monks and seasoned Coptic monks. Have them gather, and instead of discussing historical theology and who did what to whom in the fifth century, have them talk about how they pray, and how they fast, and how they try to acquire the virtues. If that happened, I think both sides would be able to gauge accurately just how close or how far apart we really are. I suspect the monks on Athos might come away from such a meeting surprised.

^That may be a good idea (though I doubt it would ever happen), but I don't necessarily think our Monks worry too much about who did what during the fifth century. It could very well distract them from their true purpose, living their lives as Monastics.

St Jacob of Serug says:

"This is why the discerning soul should abandon the debate [over Christ] and be filled [instead] with the wonder of Christ. Let it be filled with the wonder Who is Christ! Whoever pries into the unsearchably Begotten [of the Father] no longer has wonder, and this is to say that he no longer has Christ in himself. If some investigation has set him off in search of wonder, this is because he has lost that wonder...Therefore, O soul, make haste rather to wonder, and take care to love. Be ready to worship. Keep yourself in a state of wonder...Open the door of your spirit to wonder."

In any case, the Athonites clearly don't know a thing about OO history or theology. I mean have you read their book "The Non-Chalcedonians Heretics"?! They totally misrepresent us in that book.

« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 05:19:36 PM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

^Oh, I agree with you completely. I did not wish to insult them in any way, that was not my intention. I just wanted to make clear that they do not have a full grasp on our theology. I hope the Athonites pray for sinful people like me every day. Forgive me.

« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 06:25:37 PM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Oh, and I find it funny how you complained about Monachos not being welcoming to OO, and then here you are basically telling me to shut up (which, I presume, was also the point of repeatedly saying I am not Orthodox - something anyone who looks to the left of my posts will see).

Why don't you ask a parish priest near you? It's one thing to "understand" Orthodoxy via the internet or reading. Try living the Orthodox life, and you'll see what compels us to recognize the OO as Orthodox.

I think a more pragmatic and fruitful method (toward union) would be to convene a conference of seasoned Athonite monks and seasoned Coptic monks. Have them gather, and instead of discussing historical theology and who did what to whom in the fifth century, have them talk about how they pray, and how they fast, and how they try to acquire the virtues. If that happened, I think both sides would be able to gauge accurately just how close or how far apart we really are. I suspect the monks on Athos might come away from such a meeting surprised.

I happen to know at least one priest who does NOT believe they are Orthodox, for your information. As well, there is all of Mt. Athos...

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Because I only know a few priests, I am not going to give his jurisdiction, as it may well give him away and since he's not - to my knowledge - mentioned online anywhere about his position, I am not sure it's my place to give him away. But, yes, I am saying I know priests who do NOT believe you are Orthodox.

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Well, this isn't an issue that I've ever talked at length with a priest over, seeing as how there are countless issues of far more immediate importance in my life. However, even if he believed every single thing you believe is Orthodox, that still doesn't mean he wouldn't "condemn an entire communion to life outside the Church and Christ" as he could still believe you to be schismatic.

Tell me this: Do you "condemn" Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses to "life outside the Church and Christ"? Or do you believe they too are the Church? I really was not trying to get into a debate. I was answering a question directly asked to me in a thread that has for some strange reason been revived.

Well, this isn't an issue that I've ever talked at length with a priest over, seeing as how there are countless issues of far more immediate importance in my life. However, even if he believed every single thing you believe is Orthodox, that still doesn't mean he wouldn't "condemn an entire communion to life outside the Church and Christ" as he could still believe you to be schismatic.

Tell me this: Do you "condemn" Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses to "life outside the Church and Christ"? Or do you believe they too are the Church? I really was not trying to get into a debate. I was answering a question directly asked to me in a thread that has for some strange reason been revived.

Trying to equate the Oriental Orthodox with the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses is a bad comparison because the two situations are not even close to being analogous. The Mormons were never even part of the Church to begin with, but the OO were.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

I am confused as to why it should matter what an individual priest who James knows thinks about Oriental Orthodoxy, other than as fuel for more arguments that I am sure neither side really want to have. I will say that I know non-Chalcedonians (Ethiopians and Eritreans) who are communed in both the Bulgarian and OCA churches back in my home area of Northern California, and are considered to be integral members of those churches. Without an Oriental Orthodox alternative in the area (I had to move 1,200 miles away to find a Coptic Orthodox church, glory be to God), it is amazing how quickly these polemical walls are broken down in practice (that is to say, in reality), particularly against the backdrop of an otherwise thoroughly Roman Catholic environment. So I have to conclude as a non-Orthodox observer, looking in from the outside, that the operative principle in those places where the two communions might meet on non-polemical grounds (e.g., not ecumenical meetings, or declarations from atop Mt. Athos...) is often "Where Orthodoxy is, there is the Church", or at least that this is just as salient an idea in the lives of both EO and OO as the principle of "Where the Bishop is, there is the Church".

Having said all that, I have also met some OO who maintain that the EO are heretics (a much smaller number than the opposite way 'round, BTW), so again, what is the point of such anecdotal evidence? We already know that the schism remains, without referring to Fr. "He Who Shall Not Be Named" or Dick and Jane Layperson. The local, everyday demonstrations of unity must be seen as a better model for the future than the condemnations of the past, even if we all acknowledge there is still some ways to go and that we will not get there but by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Fwiw, my Priest views the Byzantines as Orthodox, insofar that they are Orthodox in faith and praxis, but he has (without using so many words) made it clear enough that they are schismatic. He does not commune Byzantines and he is totally against the idea of our Church accepting the council of Chalcedon. I once asked him "would you commune Byzantine Orthodox?" to which he then said "No, my hierarchs would not allow it, besides Christ established one Church, we cannot commune those who believe apply a duality [of natures] to Christ (I.e. the Chalcedonians) and those who do not (I.e. the OO)".

An Important Note: This may or may not be my own personal opinion.

« Last Edit: September 21, 2011, 04:00:54 PM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

I am considering writing something lengthy about the relationships between the two communions over the years. It is not at all as it is represented by modern polemicists.

I'd buy a copy.

As would I.

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Well, this isn't an issue that I've ever talked at length with a priest over, seeing as how there are countless issues of far more immediate importance in my life. However, even if he believed every single thing you believe is Orthodox, that still doesn't mean he wouldn't "condemn an entire communion to life outside the Church and Christ" as he could still believe you to be schismatic.

Tell me this: Do you "condemn" Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses to "life outside the Church and Christ"? Or do you believe they too are the Church? I really was not trying to get into a debate. I was answering a question directly asked to me in a thread that has for some strange reason been revived.

Trying to equate the Oriental Orthodox with the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses is a bad comparison because the two situations are not even close to being analogous. The Mormons were never even part of the Church to begin with, but the OO were.

My point was only to say that even Fr. Peter Farrington would refuse to accept that certain people are the Church, even when they claim to be. My point was that doing so does not mean that such a group is evil or anything, but merely that you do not accept them as the Church.

CoptoGeek, if you read my other posts you will find that, while I do not believe the OO are the Church, I have no animosity towards you.

^I would agree with you in saying that you are far more charitable towards the OO than many of your coreligionists who post on the private fora. Many of whom are a bunch of cult-like... *holds his tongue*.

« Last Edit: September 21, 2011, 10:11:36 PM by Severian »

Logged

"I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die [...] These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

No longer active on OC.net. Please pray for me and forgive any harm I might have caused by my ignorance and malice. Pls email me, don't send PMs.

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting something here, but it seems to me like you're saying that schism doesn't really matter. Or at least that it doesn't lead to one group losing its apostolicity and/or catholicity. How do you reconcile that with St. John Chrysostom's teaching that schism is worse than heresy?

Logged

Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

The fact is that schism is a terrible sin, and worse than heresy. But the vast majority of people belonging to a 'separated' group are not schismatics at all. From my perspective as a priest sitting in the UK, is a devout, elderly Christian of the Romanian Orthodox Church a schismatic? I don't think so. The Romanian Orthodox Christian may not even know there is a Coptic Orthodox Church, and may not know anything truthful about my Church in any case. On what basis then is such a faithful Christian a schismatic?

Is Max Michel, the Egyptian who has set himself up in our own times as a pseudo-bishop in Egypt a schismatic? Most certainly. He is worthy of every criticism and condemnation, and those who join themselves to him, cutting themselves off from the life of the Church are in grave and present danger of being schismatics with him.

But not everyone associated with a 'separation' is a schismatic. If a man has decided to leave the Church and join Max Michel's group he is probably a schismatic if he does so with knowledge and intent. But is his 10 year old son a schismatic? I don't see how that would be a just or reasonable conclusion. And if after some years, the 10 year old son who becomes a 20 year old man just keeps going to the same 'Church' he has always known (as the vast majority of religious people do) then he is not necessarily a schismatic either.

If he became an activist for his cause, and actively propagated the separation into a new generation then he might well be worthy of being considered a schismatic. But if he is just going to 'Church' and trying to be Orthodox as he has understood it so far then he might be misled, deceived, in error, but he would not strike me as a schismatic.

The Fathers understood this, and in the anti-Chalcedonian movement it was always the case that the ordinary folk were to be treated with great leniency when they sought to be reconciled with the Church. It was understood that generally they were not participants in any sin of schism, or even wittingly in any heresy, and were received by a simple renunciation of error and confession of faith. The Fathers of the anti-Chalcedonian Orthodox movement never considered that the Chalcedonians had altogether ceased to be the Church. This is why we have not baptised or even chrismated any coming to our communion until the most recent decades. St Severus speaks of 'illegal re-anointing' as an 'abominable practice'.

Even today, where Eastern Orthodox are permitted to receive communion from our hands it is on the basis of their confessing no heresy, urging no schism, and by their desire and faithfulness in worship manifesting that Orthodoxy which has been required by the Fathers. To desire to worship with us eliminates any trace of schism. Schism is a sin of the will not a matter of jurisdiction.

It might be possible for me to consider that a member of a notionally 'hard-line' Eastern Orthodox jurisdiction might have no trace of schism in their heart, while a member of an ostensibly 'friendly' Eastern Orthodox jurisdiction might be eaten up by it. (And there are one or two of my own communion who are also apparently and as far as they can be known on the internet, eaten up by schism, even while members of the Church).

Is it serious that the Eastern Orthodox communion has separated itself from our Orthodoxy? Yes, of course. This is why there have not ceased to be efforts made to bring about reconciliation. The fact of the Islamic domination of the Middle East has made things very difficult in this regard. But that is no longer a factor, and it is now easy to communicate, where there is a will. Now we must see whether both sides indeed do have a will to be reconciled. Schism is not manifest simply by the fact of being separated. This is part of history. It is manifest as a sin in the hearts of those who perpetuate division.

There were dialogues all through the 6th and into the 7th centuries. There was a short lived reunion in the 7th century. There was the possibility of reunion in the 19th century. There is certainly a human division within the Church, and to say this is impossible is manifestly and historically false. But it is for us to see whether we add to division through our own cultivation of the sin of schism, or whether we do all that is possible and reasonable and appropriate to heal the wounds of the past.

I was born into and brought up in the Plymouth Brethren, a group whose distinctive beliefs I almost entirely reject as plain wrong. But was I separated from God and steeped in schism and heresy just by being born into such a situation? Or was I already on the spiritual pilgrimage to where I am now? I believe the latter, both of myself and of most people. We cannot help where we are born, we cannot easily choose what we know or learn, but we can choose what we do with what we know and learn. Had I discovered Orthodoxy, properly and with consideration, and rejected it, then I might well be guilty of separating myself in schism and heresy. But my whole life has been a journey towards and into Orthodoxy.

I take the same view towards Eastern Orthodox. All of us are on a spiritual journey. Is this one or that one growing in Orthodoxy, in love and truth, or is this one or that one turning in on themselves, fearfully narrowing and hardening their heart in schism? Where we start is not so much the issue. Just as the Fathers teach that we are born mortal but not sinful, so I would suggest that we are born into situations of broken-ness and division but not born schismatic. We choose to become sinners and schismatics ourselves.

I understand that the heresiarch or lead schismatic would be the most culpable, but what about sacramental grace? How does that come into play during schism? Does schism from the Church mean a loss of sacraments? Or does it vary based on whether the schismatics pervert the faith or not?

Logged

Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.

Clearly the Church has never believed entirely that 'schism' however defined 'always' leads to a loss of grace. There have been so many divisions in the human experience of the Church and in almost all the important cases these have been resolved simply by what might be termed 'a synodal confession of faith' and then by communion.

What the Church has always done is surely some reflection of what the Church believes.

During the time of St Jacob Baradeus, in the 6th century, some of the senior anti-Chalcedonians, including the Patriarch of Antioch, were held prisoner in Constantinople in very difficult circumstances for many months. Eventually they were convinced by the Imperial authority, and by their own people, that a union with the Chalcedonians was possible. The Emperor promised that as soon as a union was effected then Chalcedon could be dealt with in a suitable manner. The anti-Chalcedonians agreed to commune with the Chalcedonians twice before they realised that they were being duped.

The issue here is that communion was to be effected by communion. There was no talk of 'economia'. It was understood that there was one Church and that there was a division within the Church which needed to be resolved. (This was the opinion on both sides as it was and is clearly a mutual division).

The same thing happened a century later when there was a short lived reunion between the Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians. It was effected by communion on the basis that an agreement had been reached on the doctrinal issues.

Likewise when the Georgian Church decided to become Chalcedonian, there were no baptisms or chrismations and no talk of economia. There was an acceptance of certain doctrinal points and then union was effected by communion.

The same is true of Armenian approaches to Constantinople much later on. There was a list of requirements, but union would have been effected by accepting these requirements and then sharing in the sacrament of communion.

The attitude in Alexandria in the 19th century was just the same traditional Orthodox one. The Greek Patriarch would have become part of the Coptic Patriarchate by communion, and not by the celebration or recelebration of any sacraments.

Your last point is important. It does seem necessary to ask how far the faith has been perverted by any group seeking to reconciled. But it must be understood that generally those groups moving away from Orthodoxy have not sought to be reconciled to Orthodoxy. I do recall (I think) that when the last remnants of Novationism were united with the Church of Alexandria it was not by any sacramental means, but there are also other groups whose ordinations have not been recognised because the foundation of the ordinations was not Orthodox. I mean that in some cases where X was not properly a bishop and formed a breakaway group then he did not have the grace in any circumstances to ordain priests. But if X were a bishop who schismed then it seems that his ordinations might be accepted.

The trouble with the very strict view of schism is that it sweeps up all manner of circumstances. It forces a taking of sides which has never been Orthodox. If, in modern times, a communion finds itself having to set up a synod in resistance due to invasion or communism, then is that synod schismatic and graceless just because it has separated itself from the synod in the mother country? What if only a few a few other local Churches recognise this synod? Is it less Orthodox because of that? What if, under some political pressures, all the local Churches break communion for a time with this synod in resistance? Does this necessarily mean that it is not Orthodox and does it necessarily mean it is graceless?

I don't believe that relations with others is always the best way of gauging the Orthodoxy of a group. Often, in the reality of Church history, these tensions and divisions are resolved, and almost always this is without there being any situation where one group is considered graceless. I am finding it hard to think of situations where an orthodox schism (rather than a descent into a non-Christian heresy) leads to the denial of grace. There can certainly be lots of colourful language about other groups, and stern warnings about associating with them, but when it comes down to the process of reconciliation then we see what the groups really think of each other's condition. It is not possible to use 'economia' where there is no reality of grace at all. And the fact that most reunions have taken place on the basis of confession of faith and communion suggests to me that usually there is a recognition of grace, and that division can take place within the Church, as well as lead to schism and separation from the Church.